Sooo...this is gorgeous. How much did it cost?

[Koa]

I don't see how most of it from any time period will maintain. I mean forget about even the top level stuff. How pricey is an average cover from a below a average artist from a Marvel or DC book from the past 30 years cost? It seems like a few grand on average. I just don't see fresh meat coming in and paying even that type for money for black and white art years down the line.

 

I know I just play in the kiddie pool, but I look at it as I'd rather spend several thousand on an interior from a really good artist than a mediocre cover from a B/C list artist in the same price range.

 

But that's just me.

 

I just don't see a younger generation of future collectors being into black and white panel pages especially with a major chance of decreased lack of nostalgia. So many collectors have admitted nostalgia drives much of their collecting.

 

The reason there is no no real excitement or even new "hot" artists with fans is that aren't many artists who attempt to make a visually appealing comic today. You can't create nostalgia in the younger generation as they age if you don't make a real impact today. People read stories, they don't collect them. Artists have let themselves become obsolete as a selling point for comics. Appealing visual art with always rise to the top with consumers, no matter how story focused they claim to be powerful visual presentation of those great stories are what makes iconic comics.

[alxjhnsn]

The reason there is no no real excitement or even new "hot" artists with fans is that aren't many artists who attempt to make a visually appealing comic today.

 

Really? I have to disagree. If there are fewer "hot" artists, I'd attribute most of that to there being fewer readers.

 

Admittedly, tastes vary, but there seems to be something for every taste. I'll mention a few:

 

1) Stuff of Legends - Charles Paul Wilson III

His work is beautiful and he tells an effective story. I look forward to each issue

2) Morning Glories - Joe Eisma and Alex Sollazo

This book has an outstanding combination of line work and colors. It would dominate the book if the story wasn't so interesting. Alex makes the pages glow.

3) Manhattan Project - Nick Pitarra

Okay, Nick's style could be considered ugly if you like photorealism, but it's fascinating. The more I read it, the better it gets. It will catch your eye.

4) SiP, Echo, or Rachel Rising - Terry Moore

Terry's work is always eye catching especially his women. Though I can point you to a John Carter of Mars picture that even more eye catching.

5) Bone, RASL - Jeff Smith

Two totally different styles and they both caught my eye.

 

I could go on and on. Anyway, my point is that there are lots of beautiful, visually appealing books "out there."

 

What do you like to read?

[Pete Marino]

I don't see how most of it from any time period will maintain. I mean forget about even the top level stuff. How pricey is an average cover from a below a average artist from a Marvel or DC book from the past 30 years cost? It seems like a few grand on average. I just don't see fresh meat coming in and paying even that type for money for black and white art years down the line.

 

I know I just play in the kiddie pool, but I look at it as I'd rather spend several thousand on an interior from a really good artist than a mediocre cover from a B/C list artist in the same price range.

 

But that's just me.

 

I just don't see a younger generation of future collectors being into black and white panel pages especially with a major chance of decreased lack of nostalgia. So many collectors have admitted nostalgia drives much of their collecting.

 

The reason there is no no real excitement or even new "hot" artists with fans is that aren't many artists who attempt to make a visually appealing comic today. You can't create nostalgia in the younger generation as they age if you don't make a real impact today. People read stories, they don't collect them. Artists have let themselves become obsolete as a selling point for comics. Appealing visual art with always rise to the top with consumers, no matter how story focused they claim to be powerful visual presentation of those great stories are what makes iconic comics.

 

I couldn't disagree more.

 

There are some great artists doing amazing work right now.

 

I could raddle of a least a handful of artists that have become "hot" or are "warming up" as we speak

 

1 that comes to mind, in the last 18 months is Jerome Opena.

 

If / when he releases is Uncanny X-Force or Avengers art, it will sell, and it'll sell at a premium.

[Bronty]

i dont know what this 122 splash sold for as it was just purchased recently......but this spalsh was offered back to me this past year for 150k and i passed on it....

 

 

 

 

 

before or after its recent purchase Mike, can you say?

[Koa]

The reason there is no no real excitement or even new "hot" artists with fans is that aren't many artists who attempt to make a visually appealing comic today.

 

Really? I have to disagree. If there are fewer "hot" artists, I'd attribute most of that to there being fewer readers.

 

Admittedly, tastes vary, but there seems to be something for every taste. I'll mention a few:

 

1) Stuff of Legends - Charles Paul Wilson III

His work is beautiful and he tells an effective story. I look forward to each issue

2) Morning Glories - Joe Eisma and Alex Sollazo

This book has an outstanding combination of line work and colors. It would dominate the book if the story wasn't so interesting. Alex makes the pages glow.

3) Manhattan Project - Nick Pitarra

Okay, Nick's style could be considered ugly if you like photorealism, but it's fascinating. The more I read it, the better it gets. It will catch your eye.

4) SiP, Echo, or Rachel Rising - Terry Moore

Terry's work is always eye catching especially his women. Though I can point you to a John Carter of Mars picture that even more eye catching.

5) Bone, RASL - Jeff Smith

Two totally different styles and they both caught my eye.

 

I could go on and on. Anyway, my point is that there are lots of beautiful, visually appealing books "out there."

 

What do you like to read?

 

I'm sorry. I meant commercially appealing new artists. There are a lot of very good artists in comics today. I just find it odd the top tier artists in terms of fan appeal today have been for 20 years or so in many cases.

 

 

 

 

[alxjhnsn]

I slow and I don't understand.

 

What does "commercially appealing" mean to you?

 

New artists - like CPW3, Joe, and Nick - take a while to catch on. That's true, but all three of their books are commercially (332, 203, 127, respectively) and critically successful (http://comicsforheroes.org/the-top-9-of-2010-or-the-best-comics-that-didnt-involve-scott-snyder-greg-capullo-or-batman/).

 

Do you mean that if an artist isn't on a top 10 (or whatever) selling title they aren't "hot?"

 

What am I missing?

[Claudio]

I think he is saying there are no new Kirbys or McFarlanes or Lees. I tend to agree. I think there are some tremendous talents right now but no one is transcendent.

[Koa]

I think he is saying there are no new Kirbys or McFarlanes or Lees. I tend to agree. I think there are some tremendous talents right now but no one is transcendent.

Yes, transcendent is a much better way to describe it. Thank you Claudio. i didn't mean any of that as an insult to the quality of artists out there. Adele or lady gaga aren't the most talented singers out there but they resonate with people. There aren't any newer artists in comics right now who do that yet. Quite a few writers are though.

 

The page in this thread is a great example of commercial. Gil Kane was very dynamic but quirky, when his work was polished by Romita sr who knew what the fans wanted from spider-man at that time, it became very commercially appealing at that time and now it's classic.

 

 

Alex- If I had to boil it down, i would say the ability of the work to make a fair number of fans of the art form "need" it. Like an itch you have to scratch. Just for the art. For example, every kid I knew needed to have those Mike Zeck GI covers in the 80's even if the books they were on looks like . There were a bunch of artists better than Mike Zeck, but he made us need that art. The art on Morning glories may be really great, but I don't "need" to have it. There are artists who make lots of people need to have a book.

 

[Koa]

I think the page in question cost more than 150K. Close?

[alxjhnsn]

Got it.

[plasticmoz]

I agree with that. I think part of the reason in terms of clear separation these days is due to the playing field. With the Internet (primarily sharing of information) and tools accessible to a wider audience than ever before I think it's harder to differentiate yourself to the degree that some of the names you mentioned once did.

 

I'm not saying it's impossible, but I think it's harder. Mix that in with the fact that publishers are not shy about rotating artists or getting in a relative unknown on a big title now due to cost considerations (or whatever else), you rarely see long sustained runs where a particular artist really puts a stamp on a particular franchise/character. I think raw talent is there (in spades), but some of the nuanced greatness is harder to find due to these factors.

[Koa]

I agree with that. I think part of the reason in terms of clear separation these days is due to the playing field. With the Internet (primarily sharing of information) and tools accessible to a wider audience than ever before I think it's harder to differentiate yourself to the degree that some of the names you mentioned once did.

 

I'm not saying it's impossible, but I think it's harder. Mix that in with the fact that publishers are not shy about rotating artists or getting in a relative unknown on a big title now due to cost considerations (or whatever else), you rarely see long sustained runs where a particular artist really puts a stamp on a particular franchise/character. I think raw talent is there (in spades), but some of the nuanced greatness is harder to find due to these factors.

 

Very true. I think minimizing artistic talent the way publishers do today (intentional or not) is ultimately putting a ceiling on sales. Still, i will never understand how art and the artist became so unimportant to modern comics readers/collectors overall. The owner of the comic shop I go to says I'm the last customer he has that buys books based on the artist. The employes can't tell you who is drawing a given book these days. it's very sad, to me anyway.

 

 

[alxjhnsn]

For the most part, I have a hard time remembering the artist on most books. There are lots of artists whose work I admire and follow, but there are lots of good ones that just seem to come and go on a title. Too quickly to establish themselves on the book.

[easyt63]

OK! So, I figured we could keep this sort of topic going with a brand new piece that hit CAF today, and it's freakin' awesome!

 

http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=974246&GSub=2534

 

So, how much did it cost?

 

 

[AKA Rick]

I agree with Alex here.

 

It's like the people who complain about the music of today.

 

Pop culture, be it art, literature or music has always had an audience and fan base.

 

The 50 year old guys who jeered their kids love for the Backstreet Boys, are the same guys who were criticized for liking The Bee Gees by their fathers, who were in turn criticized for liking Elvis...

 

You may end up seeing a Charlie Adlard being revered for his mood inducing work on The Walking Dead, compared to his 80's counterpart, Frank Miller in years to come.

 

Are today's artists Frank Cho and Adam Hughes the modern day Dave Stevens, with their pin-up work?

 

Will Mark Bagley whose run on Ultimate Spider-Man compares to Kirby's on the Fantastic Four, be considered one of the major artists of that character as Ditko, Romita, Kane, and McFarlane?

 

I think there's lots of talent out there, but I agree with Alex, the medium (comic books) itself is failing more so than the artists or their talent.

 

 

 

The reason there is no no real excitement or even new "hot" artists with fans is that aren't many artists who attempt to make a visually appealing comic today.

 

Really? I have to disagree. If there are fewer "hot" artists, I'd attribute most of that to there being fewer readers.

 

Admittedly, tastes vary, but there seems to be something for every taste. I'll mention a few:

 

1) Stuff of Legends - Charles Paul Wilson III

His work is beautiful and he tells an effective story. I look forward to each issue

2) Morning Glories - Joe Eisma and Alex Sollazo

This book has an outstanding combination of line work and colors. It would dominate the book if the story wasn't so interesting. Alex makes the pages glow.

3) Manhattan Project - Nick Pitarra

Okay, Nick's style could be considered ugly if you like photorealism, but it's fascinating. The more I read it, the better it gets. It will catch your eye.

4) SiP, Echo, or Rachel Rising - Terry Moore

Terry's work is always eye catching especially his women. Though I can point you to a John Carter of Mars picture that even more eye catching.

5) Bone, RASL - Jeff Smith

Two totally different styles and they both caught my eye.

 

I could go on and on. Anyway, my point is that there are lots of beautiful, visually appealing books "out there."

 

What do you like to read?

[Claudio]

 

You may end up seeing a Charlie Adlard being revered for his mood inducing work on The Walking Dead, compared to his 80's counterpart, Frank Miller in years to come.

 

[drdroom]

 

The 50 year old guys who jeered their kids love for the Backstreet Boys, are the same guys who were criticized for liking The Bee Gees by their fathers, who were in turn criticized for liking Elvis...

 

 

Hmmm. I think you've just demonstrated the steady decline of Western Civilization....